Literature DB >> 25716902

The choice of the noninferiority margin in clinical trials was driven by baseline risk, type of primary outcome, and benefits of new treatment.

Angèle Gayet-Ageron1, Thomas Agoritsas2, Sandrine Rudaz3, Delphine Courvoisier3, Thomas Perneger3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To explore characteristics of clinical trials that influence the choice of the noninferiority margin (NIM) when planning the trial. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: We conducted an experimental survey among corresponding authors of randomized controlled trials indexed in MEDLINE. We described two hypothetical studies and asked the respondents' opinion on the largest loss of effectiveness that is clinically negligible (or the smallest lost of effectiveness that is clinically important in the superiority scenario). We randomly manipulated four study attributes in each vignette, using a factorial design.
RESULTS: A total of 364 researchers participated. The values for NIMs were significantly lower than the differences to be detected in a superiority trial. The NIM was smaller when the primary outcome was mortality compared with treatment failure, when baseline risk in the control arm was lower, and when the advantage of the new treatment was a lower cost compared with having fewer side effects. In contrast, the population age group under study and the difficulty to recruit patients showed no effect on the choice of the NIM.
CONCLUSION: In our experimental study, the factors associated with lower NIMs were mortality as a primary outcome, low baseline risk, and a less costly new treatment.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical trial; Minimal clinically important difference; Noninferiority margin; Noninferiority study design; Primary outcome; Randomized controlled trials; Sample size

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25716902     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  5 in total

1.  Design of non-inferiority randomized trials using the difference in restricted mean survival times.

Authors:  Isabelle R Weir; Ludovic Trinquart
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 2.486

2.  How do researchers determine the difference to be detected in superiority trials? Results of a survey from a panel of researchers.

Authors:  Angèle Gayet-Ageron; Anne-Sophie Jannot; Thomas Agoritsas; Sandrine Rudaz; Christophe Combescure; Thomas Perneger
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 4.615

3.  Optimal contrast analysis with heterogeneous variances and budget concerns.

Authors:  Show-Li Jan; Gwowen Shieh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-26       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Noninferiority Margin Size and Acceptance of Trial Results: Contingent Valuation Survey of Clinician Preferences for Noninferior Mortality.

Authors:  Sandra Pong; Robert A Fowler; Nicholas Mitsakakis; Srinivas Murthy; Jeffrey M Pernica; Elaine Gilfoyle; Asha Bowen; Patricia Fontela; Winnie Seto; Michelle Science; James S Hutchison; Philippe Jouvet; Asgar Rishu; Nick Daneman
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 2.749

5.  Are micro enemas administered with a squeeze tube and a 5 cm-long nozzle as good or better than micro enemas administered with a 10 cm-long catheter attached to a syringe in people with a recent spinal cord injury? A non-inferiority, crossover randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Louise C Kelly; Joanne V Glinsky; Lianne M Nier; Gillian Garrett; Lisa A Harvey
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 2.473

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.